In Europe, the supremacy of the pope faced challenges from kings and western

emperors on a number of matters, leading to power struggles and crises of

leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy of the eleventh century over the
question of who had the authority to appoint local bishops. The reason the kings
wanted to be involved was that the church owned and controlled vast areas of land
and so the bishops had great economic and thus political power. A see-saw battle
ensured during the succeeding centuries as kings sought to assert their
independence from Rome while the papacy engaged in various programs of reform
on the one hand and the exercise of considerable power against rebellious kings on
the other, through such methods as excommunication and interdicts.
In England there was a clash between church and state over the legal
jurisdiction. King Henry II wanted the clergy to be tried in civil courts and not church
courts on the basis that everyone should be judged by the same law and receive
the same punishment. The problem was that clergy who committed even crimes
such as murder were being judged very leniently by the ecclesiastical courts, which
was seen as unfair. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket disagreed as he
wanted to defend the independence of the church.
During the Renaissance, nationalist theorists began to affirm that kings had
absolute authority within their realms to rule on spiritual matters as well as secular
ones. Kings began, increasingly, to challenge papal authority on matters ranging
from their own divorces to questions of international relations and the right to try
clergy in secular courts. This climate was a crucial factor in the success of
the Protestant Reformation. In England Henry VIII established himself as head of the
Church of England. He went on to dissolve the monasteries and confiscate much
church land which he redistributed to his supporters. The result was the destruction
of the country's welfare provision.
Modern period
Protestant churches were just as willing as the Catholic Church to use the authority
of the state to repress their religious opponents, and Protestant princes often used
state churches for their own political ends. Years of religious wars eventually led to
various affirmations of religious toleration in Europe, notably the Peace of
Westphalia, signed in 1648. In England, after years of bloodshed and persecution on
all sides, John Locke penned his Essays of Civil Government and Letter Concerning
Toleration. These seminal documents in the history of church and state played a
significant role in both the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and later in the American
Revolution.
Locke wrote: "The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his
power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the
inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God."
Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is considered a pioneering
model for modern religious freedom legislation.

John Lockes ideas were to be further enshrined in the American Declaration of

Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Another of Jefferson's works,
the 1779 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, proclaimed:
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in
his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or
belief
The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) likewise
guaranteed that: "No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including
his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order
established by law."
The U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights, passed in 1791, specifically banned the
American government from creating a state religion, declaring: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
In practice, the French Revolution took a somewhat different attitude from its
American counterpart regarding the question of religious liberty. In the French case,
not only would the state reject the establishment of any particular religion, it would
take a vigilant stance against religions involving themselves in the political arena.
The American tradition, on the other hand, welcomed religious arguments in public
debate and allowed clergymen of various faiths to serve in public office as long as
they adhered to the U. S. Constitution. The French leadership, having suffered from
centuries of religious wars, was also deeply suspicious of religious passion and
tended to repress its public expression, while the Americans adopted a positive
attitude toward newer and smaller faiths which fostered a lively religious pluralism.
These two approaches would set the tone for future debates about the nature and
proper degree of separation between church and state in the coming centuries.

The Church gradually became a defining institution of the Empire. [1] Emperor
Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 proclaiming toleration for the Christian
religion, Emperor Theodosius I made Nicene Christianity the state church of the
Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica of 380.
After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, there emerged no single
powerful secular government in the West, but there was a central ecclesiastical
power in Rome, the Catholic Church. In this power vacuum, the Church rose to
become the dominant power in the West. As the Church expanded beginning in the
10th century, and as secular kingdoms gained power at the same time, there
naturally arose the conditions for a power struggle between Church and Kingdom
over ultimate authority.
Particularly in the eastern part of the empire, the emperor, as the strongest single
figure, tended to rule in both state and church, calling councils and deciding
theological controversies. In the West, with the weakening of the empire, and then

its fall in 476, the bishop of Rome became the single strongest figure, taking to
himself many civil as well as ecclesiastical prerogatives.
confrontation like that between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV at Canossa
in 1077, but also in the relationship between the church and state sustained in the
Crusades (beginning in 1095) and in the Investiture Controversy (settled in 1122 by
Concordat of Worms). In the Crusades, we might question the urging of the church
to the state to take up arms in the cause of the Cross, and in the Investiture
Controversy we might question the claim of the king to invest the bishop with mitre
and staff, the symbols of episcopal office (although we might question as well the
propriety of a centralized church claiming the right to install "its men").
Their conflict eventually burst into the great Investiture Controversy, which became
a struggle for supremacy between the church and the monarchy. The resolution of
the controversy left the emperor in a weakened state and increased the influence of
the secular and ecclesiastical princes.
Although the empire was reconstituted in the 12th century on the basis of Roman
law and the understanding of the empire as a distinct sacred institution (sacrum
imperium), it broke down during the 13th century as the result of a new struggle
between the emperors and several successive popes. The church, however, faced a
new challenge in the rise of the Europeannation-states. Papal ideology had been
shaped by the struggle with the emperors and thus was not suited to deal
effectively with kings of nation-states. Papal fortunes declined even further during
the subsequent Babylonian Captivity of the church, when the papacy resided
in Avignon(130977) and was perceived as being dominated by the French
monarchy.
Although the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers continued to
be a matter of concern in the 16th and 17th centuries, the changes brought by
the Reformation and the growth of state power recast the nature of the debate.
Under King Henry VIII of England a revolutionary dissociation of the English church
from papal supremacy took place. In the German territories the reigning princes
became, in effect, the legal guardians of the Protestant churchesa movement
already in the process of consolidation in the late Middle Ages. The development in
the Catholic nation-states, such as Spain, Portugal, and France, occurred in a similar
way.
In the Thirty Years War (161848) confessional antitheses were intermingled with
politics, and the credibility of the feuding ecclesiastical parties was thereby called
into question. Subsequently, from the 17th century on, the tendency toward a new,
natural-law conception of the relationship between state and church began to
develop. Henceforth, in the Protestant countries, state sovereignty was increasingly
emphasized vis--vis the churches. The state established the right to regulate
educational and marriage concerns as well as all administrative affairs of the
church. A similar development also occurred in Roman Catholic areas.
The separation of church and state was one of the legacies of the American
and French revolutions at the end of the 18th century. It was achieved as a result of
ideas arising from opposition to the English episcopal system and the English throne
as well as from the ideals of the Enlightenment. It was implemented in France

because of the social-revolutionary criticism of the wealthy ecclesiastical hierarchy

but also because of the desire to guarantee the freedom of the church.
Beginning in the late 18th century, two fundamental attitudes developed in matters
related to the separation of church and state. The first, as implied in
the Constitution of the United States, was supported by a tendency to leave to the
church, set free from state supervision, a maximum freedom in the realization of its
spiritual, moral, and educational tasks. In contrast to this, the attitude of National
Socialism in Germany under Hitler was contradictory. On the one hand, Nazi
ideology allowed no public role for the church and its teaching. On the other hand,
Hitler was concerned not to trigger an outright confrontation with the church. The
concordat concluded in 1933 between Germany and the Roman Catholic Church
illustrates this policy of official neutrality. Even in the United States, however, the
old state-church system, overcome during the American Revolution, still produces
aftereffects in the form of tax privileges of the church (exemption from most
taxation), the exemption of the clergy from military service, and the financial
furtherance of confessional school and educational systems through the state.
These privileges have been questioned and even attacked by certain segments of
the American public.
In essence, the earliest vision of Christendom was a vision of a Christian theocracy,
a government founded upon and upholding Christian values, whose institutions are
spread through and over with Christian doctrine. In this period, members of the
Christian clergy wield political authority. The specific relationship between
the political leaders and the clergy varied but, in theory, the national and political
divisions were at times subsumed under the leadership of the Catholic Church as an
institution. This model of church-state relations was accepted by various Church
leaders and political leaders in European history.
The classical heritage flourished throughout the Middle Ages in both the Byzantine
Greek East and the Latin West.
The conflict between Church and state was in many ways a uniquely Western
phenomenon originating in Late Antiquity.The Papal States in Italy were ruled
directly by the Holy See. Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages the Pope claimed
the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe, and tried to exercise it,
sometimes successfully, sometimes not, as with Henry VIII of England and Henry
III of Navarre.[5] However, in the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as
the Byzantine Empire, Church and state were closely linked and collaborated in a
"symphony", with some exceptions .
Before the Age of Absolutism, institutions, such as the Church, legislatures, or social
elites,[6] restrained monarchical power. Absolutism was characterized by the ending
of feudal partitioning, consolidation of power with the monarch, rise of state, rise of
professional standing armies, professional bureaucracies, the codification of state
laws, and the rise of ideologies that justify the absolutist monarchy. Hence,
Absolutism was made possible by new innovations and characterized as a
phenomenon of Early Modern Europe, rather than that of the Middle Ages, where
the clergy and nobility counterbalanced as a result of mutual rivalry.

A dispute between the secular and ecclesiastical powers emerged known as

the Investiture Controversy, beginning in the mid-eleventh century and was
resolved with the Concordat of Worms in 1122. While on the surface it was over a
matter of official procedures regarding the appointments of offices, underneath was
a powerful struggle for control over who held ultimate authority, the King or the
Pope.
In England, the principle of separation of church and state can be found in the
Magna Carta (1215). The first clause declared that the Church in England would be
free from interference by the Crown. The barons, who forced King John to sign the
Magna Carta, wanted to create a separation between church and state powers to
keep the Crown from using the Church as a political weapon and from arbitrarily
seizing its lands and property. However, the Pope annulled the "shameful and
demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear" one month after
it was signed. The Magna Carta was reissued, albeit with alterations, in 1216 and
1225 but continued to be a subject of contention for several centuries as it was
either seen as providing legal precedence or by later monarchs as restricting their
authority.
The separation of state and church was established in France in 1905 after many
years of discussion. The 1905 law is based on the religious neutrality of the state.
Under the doctrine of lacit, the state must ensure that everyone has the possibility
of attending worship and of being instructed in the beliefs proper to his or her
chosen religion. This equality among the different religions implies that there is no
state religion; the legislation of 1905 was designed to make religion a private
matter and, as such, subject only to individual control. The religious denominations
in France, in principle, do not have any direct or officially approved relations with
the political system, although religious representatives are regularly consulted in
ethical debates of national importance.

Magna Carta promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons
from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations
on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25
barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled
by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency
government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of
some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for
their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed
at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, referring to its
considerable size. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in
exchange for a grant of new taxes; his son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297,
this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.

Nationalism/Nationality
In Europe before the development of nationalism, people were generally loyal to a
religion or to a particular leader rather than to their nations. With the emergence of

a national public sphere and an integrated, country-wide economy in 18th

century England, people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the
smaller unit of their family, town or province. The early emergence of a popular
patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted
by the government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time. National
symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed and
adopted. The widespread appeal of patriotic nationalism was massively augmented
by the political convulsions of the late 18th century, theAmerican and French
Revolutions.
Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law of
a state that bestows on that person (called a citizen) the rights and the duties of
citizenship. That may include the right to vote, work and live in the country, the
right to return to the country, the right to own real estate, legal protections against
the country's government, and protection through the military or diplomacy. A
citizen may also be subject to certain duties, such as a duty to follow the country's
law, to pay taxes, or to serve in themilitary.
Many thinkers point to the concept of citizenship beginning in the early citystates of ancient Greece, although others see it as primarily a modern phenomenon
dating back only a few hundred years and, for mankind, that the concept of
citizenship arose with the first laws. Polis meant both the political assembly of the
city-state as well as the entire society.
In the Roman Empire, citizenship expanded from small scale communities to the
entire empire. Romans realized that granting citizenship to people from all over the
empire legitimized Roman rule over conquered areas. Roman citizenship was no
longer a status of political agency; it had been reduced to a judicial safeguard and
the expression of rule and law.
During European Middle Ages, citizenship was usually associated with cities and
towns, see burgher, Grand Burgher (German Grobrger)
and Bourgeoisie. Nobility used to
have privileges above commoners (see aristocracy), but the French Revolution and
other revolutions revoked these privileges and made citizens.
During the Renaissance, people transitioned from being subjects of a king or queen
to being citizens of a city and later to a nation. Each city had its own law, courts,
and independent administration. And being a citizen often meant being subject to
the city's law in addition to having power in some instances to help choose
officials. City dwellers who had fought alongside nobles in battles to defend their
cities were no longer content with having a subordinate social status, but demanded
a greater role in the form of citizenship. Membership in guilds was an indirect form
of citizenship in that it helped their members succeed financially. The rise of
citizenship was linked to the rise of republicanism, according to one account, since
independent citizens meant that kings had less power. Citizenship became an
idealized, almost abstract, concept, and did not signify a submissive relation with a
lord or count, but rather indicated the bond between a person and the state in the
rather abstract sense of having rights and duties.
Modern times

The modern idea of citizenship still respects the idea of political participation, but it
is usually done through "elaborate systems of political representation at a distance"
such as representative democracy.[8] Modern citizenship is much more passive;
action is delegated to others; citizenship is often a constraint on acting, not an
impetus to act.[8]Nevertheless, citizens are usually aware of their obligations to
authorities, and are aware that these bonds often limit what they can do.
American Revolution
American and subsequent French declarations of rights were instrumental in linking
the notion of fundamental rights to popular sovereignty in the sense that
governments drew their legitimacy and authority from the consent of the governed.
The Framers designed the United States Constitution to accommodate a rapidly
growing republic by opting for representative democracy as opposed to direct
democracy, but this arrangement challenged the idea of citizenship in the sense
that citizens were, in effect, choosing other persons to represent them and take
their place in government. The revolutionary spirit created a sense of "broadening
inclusion". The Constitution specified a three-part structure of government with a
federal government and state governments, but it did not specify the relation of
citizenship, although the Bill of Rights protected the rights of individuals from
intrusion () by the federal government. The term citizen was not defined by
the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment was added in 1868, which defined
American citizenship as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" not
possessing foreign allegiance. Enlightenment ideas at the heart of the American
Revolution were influential worldwide, and helped to precipitate uprisings in France.
The French Revolution marked major changes and has been widely seen as a
watershed event in modern politics. Up until then, the main ties between people
under the Ancien Regime were hierarchical, such that each person owed loyalty to
the next person further up the chain of command; for example, serfs were loyal to
local vassals, who in turn were loyal to nobles, who in turn were loyal to the king,
who in turn was presumed to be loyal to God.[48] Clergy and aristocracy had special
privileges, including preferential treatment in law courts, and were exempt from
taxes; this last privilege had the effect of placing the burden of paying for national
expenses on the peasantry.
These arrangements changed substantially during and after the French
Revolution. Louis XVI mismanaged funds, vacillated, was blamed for inaction during
a famine, causing the French people to see the interest of the king and the national
interest as opposed.[48] During the early stages of the uprising, the abolition of
aristocratic privilege happened during a pivotal meeting on August 4, 1789. Later
that month, the Assembly's Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen linked the
concept of rights with citizenship and asserted that rights of man were "natural,
inalienable, and sacred", that all men were "born free and equal, and that the aim of
all political association is maintenance of their rights". However, the document said
nothing about the rights of women. People began to identify a new loyalty to the
nation as a whole, as citizens, and the idea of popular sovereignty earlier espoused
by the thinker Rousseau took hold, along with strong feelings of nationalism. Louis
XVI and his wife were guillotined. Citizenship became more inclusive and
democratic, aligned with rights and national membership. Loyalty became a

cornerstone in the concept of citizenship. The British thinker T. H. Marshall saw in

the 18th century "serious growth" of civil rights, with major growth in the legal
aspects of citizenship, often defended through courts of law. These civil rights
extended citizenship's legal dimensions: they included the right to free speech,
the right to a fair trial, and generally equal access to the legal system. Marshall saw
the 18th century as signifying civil rights which was a precursor to political
rights such as suffrage, and later, in the 20th century, social rights such as welfare.
Early modern: 1700s-1800s
After 1750, states such as Britain and France invested in massive armies and navies
which were so expensive to maintain that the option of hiring mercenary soldiers
became less attractive. Rulers found troops within the public, and taxed the public
to pay for these troops. the idea that military conscription spurred development of a
broader role for citizens.
Transitions
John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty (1859) believed that there should be no
distinctions between men and women, and that both were capable of citizenship.
British sociologist Thomas Humphrey Marshall suggested that the changing patterns
of citizenship were as follows: first, a civil relation in the sense of having equality
before the law, followed by political citizenship in the sense of having the
power to vote, and later a social citizenship in the sense of having the state
support individual persons along the lines of a welfare state. Marshall argued in the
middle of the 20th century that modern citizenship encompassed all three
dimensions: civil, political, and social. Citizenship links "a person with the state" and
gives people a universal identityas a legal member of a nationbesides their
identity based on ties of ethnicity or an ethnic self.
But clearly there are wide differences between ancient conceptions of citizenship
and modern ones. While the modern one still respects the idea of participation in
the political process, it is usually done through "elaborate systems of political
representation at a distance" such as representative democracy, and carried out
under the "shadow of a permanent professional administrative apparatus." [2] Unlike
the ancient patterns, modern citizenship is much more passive; action is delegated
to others; citizenship is often a constraint on acting, not an impetus to act.
[2]
Nevertheless, citizens are aware of their obligations to authorities, and they are
aware that these bonds "limits their personal political autonomy in a quite profound
manner".

Political and civil rights

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that
protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social
organizations, and private individuals, and which ensure one's ability to participate
in the civil and political life of the society
and statewithout discrimination or repression.

The English Bill of Rights was adopted in 1689. The Virginia Declaration of Rights,
by George Mason and James Madison, was adopted in 1776. The Virginia declaration
is the direct ancestor and model for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
In early 19th century Britain, the phrase "civil rights" most commonly referred to
the problem of legal discrimination against Catholics. In the House of Commons
support for the British civil rights movement was divided, many more largely known
politicians supported the discrimination towards Catholics.
T.H. Marshall notes that civil rights were among the first to be recognized and
codified, followed later by political rights and still later by social rights. In many
countries, they areconstitutional rights and are included in a bill of rights or similar
document.
Magna Carta is an English charter originally issued in 1215 which influenced the
development of the common law and many later constitutional documents, such as
the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Magna Carta was originally written because of disagreements amongst Pope
Innocent III, King John and the English barons about the rights of the King. Magna
Carta required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures
and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain
rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered most notably the writ
of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.
Several 17th- and 18th-century European philosophers, most notably John Locke,
developed the concept of natural rights, the notion that people are naturally free
and equal. Though Locke believed natural rights were derived from divinity
since humans were creations ofGod, his ideas were important in the development of
the modern notion of rights. Lockean natural rights did not rely on citizenship nor
any law of the state, nor were they necessarily limited to one particular ethnic,
cultural or religious group. Around the same time, in 1689 theEnglish Bill of
Rights was created. It lays down limits on the powers ofthe Crown and sets out the
rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement
for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the Monarch without fear
of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their
defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for "causing
several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time
when papists were both armed and employed contrary to laws".
Popular novels, such as Julie, or the New Heloise by Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded by Samuel Richardson, laid a foundation
for popular acceptance of human rights by making readers empathize with
characters unlike themselves. Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th
century in the United States (1776) and in France (1789). The Virginia Declaration of
Rights (to proclaim the inherent rights of men, including the right to rebel against
"inadequate" government - we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.") of 1776 sets up a
number of fundamental rights and freedoms. The later United States Declaration of
Independence includes concepts of natural rights and famously states "that all men

are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Similarly, the
French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen defines a set of individual and
collective rights of the people. These are, in the document, held to be universal not only to French citizens but to all men without exception. (Men are born and
remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the
general good. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural
and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and
resistance to oppression. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the
nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed
directly from the nation.)
19-20th centuries: Many groups and movements have managed to achieve
profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human
rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws
granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and
forbidding or regulating child labour. The women's rights movement succeeded in
gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many
countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential
was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule.
Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many
parts of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more recent
diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the
United States.
The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty
of Versailles following the end of World War I. The League's goals included
disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between
countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global welfare. Enshrined in
its Charter was a mandate to promote many of the rights which were later included
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The League of Nations had mandates to support many of the former colonies of the
Western European colonial powers during their transition from colony to
independent state.
After WII - The Geneva Conventions came into being between 1864 and 1949 as a
result of efforts by Henry Dunant, the founder of theInternational Committee of the
Red Cross. The conventions safeguard the human rights of individuals involved in
conflict.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding
declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in
response to the barbarism of World War II. The UDHR urges member nations to
promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these
rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". Some
of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on
human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions,
and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi. The inclusion of
both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights was predicated
on the assumption that basic human rights are indivisible and that the different

types of rights listed are inextricably linked. Though this principle was not opposed
by any member states at the time of adoption (the declaration was adopted
unanimously, with the abstention of the Soviet bloc, Apartheid South
Africa and Saudi Arabia).
Spread of liberalism in 19th century
Abolitionist and suffrage movements spread, along with representative and
democratic ideals. France established an enduring republic in the 1870s, and
a vicious war in the United States ensured the integrity of the nation and the
abolition of slavery in the south. Meanwhile, a mixture of liberal and nationalist
sentiment in Italy and Germany brought about the unification of the two countries in
the late 19th century. Liberal agitation in Latin America led to independence from
the imperial power of Spain and Portugal.
In France, the July Revolution of 1830, orchestrated by liberal politicians and
journalists, removed the Bourbon monarchy and inspired similar uprisings elsewhere
in Europe. Frustration with the pace of political progress in the early 19th century
sparked even more gigantic revolutions in 1848. Revolutions spread throughout
the Austrian Empire, the German states, and the Italian states. Governments fell
rapidly. Liberal nationalists demanded written constitutions, representative
assemblies, greater suffrage rights, and freedom of the press. [57] A second
republic was proclaimed in France. Serfdom was abolished
in Prussia, Galicia, Bohemia, and Hungary. The indomitable Metternich, the Austrian
builder of the reigning conservative order, shocked Europe when he resigned and
fled to Britain in panic and disguise.[58]
Eventually, however, the success of the revolutionaries petered out. Without French
help, the Italians were easily defeated by the Austrians. With some luck and skill,
Austria also managed to contain the bubbling nationalist sentiments in Germany
and Hungary, helped along by the failure of the Frankfurt Assembly to unify the
German states into a single nation. Two decades later, however, the Italians and the
Germans realised their dreams for unification and independence.
TheSardinian Prime Minister, Camillo di Cavour, was a shrewd liberal who
understood that the only effective way for the Italians to gain independence was if
the French were on their side.[59] Napoleon III agreed to Cavour's request for
assistance and France defeated Austria in the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, setting
the stage for Italian independence. German unification transpired under the
leadership of Otto von Bismarck, who decimated the enemies of Prussia in war after
war, finally triumphing against France in 1871 and proclaiming the German Empire
in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, ending another saga in the drive for
nationalisation. The French proclaimed a third republic after their loss in the war.
The Revolutions of 1848, known in some countries as the Spring of
Nations, Springtime of the Peoples[3] or the Year of Revolution, were a series
of political upheavals throughout Europe in 1848. It remains the most
widespread revolutionary wave inEuropean history, but within a
year, reactionary forces had regained control, and the revolutions collapsed.
The revolutions were essentially bourgeois-democratic in nature with the aim of
removing the old feudal structures and the creation of independent national states.

The revolutionary wave began in France in February, and immediately spread to

most of Europe and parts of Latin America. Over 50 countries were affected, but
with no coordination or cooperation among the revolutionaries in different countries.
Six factors were involved: widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership;
demands for more participation in government and democracy; demands for
freedom of press; the demands of the working classes; the upsurge of nationalism;
and finally, the regrouping of the reactionary forces based on the royalty, the
aristocracy, the army, and the peasants. [4]
The uprisings were led by shaky ad hoc coalitions of reformers, the middle classes
and workers, which did not hold together for long. Tens of thousands of people were
killed, and many more forced into exile. The only significant lasting reforms were
the abolition ofserfdom in Austria and Hungary, the end of absolute monarchy in
Denmark, and the definitive end of the Capetian monarchy in France. The
revolutions were most important in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy,
and the Austrian Empire, but did not reach Russia, Sweden, Great Britain, and most
of southern Europe (Spain, Serbia, [5] Greece, Montenegro, Portugal, the Ottoman
Empire)

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that
granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves
who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the
umbrella phrase all persons born or naturalized in the United States. In all, the
amendment comprises five sections, four of which began in 1866 as separate
proposals that stalled in legislative process and were amalgamated into a single
amendment. This so-called Reconstruction Amendment prohibited the states from
depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and
from denying anyone within a states jurisdiction equal protection under the law.
Nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment, the section of the Constitution apportioning
representation in the House of Representatives based on a formula that counted
each slave as three-fifths of a person was replaced by a clause in the Fourteenth
Amendment specifying that representatives be apportioned among the several
states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of
persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. The amendment also prohibited
former civil and military office holders who had supported the Confederacy from
again holding any state or federal officewith the proviso that this prohibition could
be removed from individuals by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress.
Moreover, the amendment upheld the national debt while exempting the federal
government and state governments from any responsibility for the debts incurred
by the rebellious Confederate States of America. Finally, the last section, mirroring
the approach of the Thirteenth Amendment, provided for enforcement.

Human rights in USA

1775. A year later, the Declaration of Independence announced that the Thirteen
Colonies regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of
the British Empire. The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which

has become a well-known statement on human rights, read "We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness." This view of human liberties, which developed during
the Enlightenment, postulates that fundamental rights are not granted by a divine
or supernatural being to monarchs who then grant them to subjects, but are
granted by a divine or supernatural being to each man (but not woman) and are
inalienable and inherent.
The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787 through ratification at a national
convention and conventions in the colonies, created a republic that guaranteed
several rights and civil liberties; the Constitution significantly referred to "Persons",
not "Men" as was used in the Declaration of Independence, omitted any reference
to the supernatural imagination (such as a "Creator" or "God") and any authority
derived or divined therefrom. The Constitution thus eliminated any requirement of
supernatural grant of human rights and provided that they belonged to all Persons.
the original Constitution sanctioned slavery (although not based on race or other
characteristic of the slave) and, through the Three-Fifths Compromise, counted
slaves (who were not defined by race) as three-fifths of a Person for purposes of
distribution of taxes and representation in the House of Representatives (although
the slaves themselves were discriminated against in voting for such
representatives).
As the new Constitution took effect in practice, concern over individual liberties and
concentration of power at the federal level, gave rise to the amendment of the
Constitution through adoption of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the
Constitution).
Courts and legislatures also began to vary in the interpretation of "Person," with
some jurisdictions narrowing the meaning of "Person" to cover only people with
property, only men, or only white men. In 1777 women lost the right to exercise
their vote in New York, in 1780 women lost the right to exercise their vote in
Massachusetts, and in 1784 women lost the right to exercise their vote in New
Hampshire.
In the 1860s, after decades of conflict over southern states' continued practice of
slavery, and northern states' outlawing it, the Civil War was fought, and in its
aftermath the Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery and to prohibit states'
denying rights granted in the Constitution. Among these amendments was
the Fourteenth Amendment, which included an Equal Protection Clause which
seemed to clarify that courts and states were prohibited in narrowing the meaning
of "Persons". After the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was
adopted, Susan B. Anthony, buttressed by the equal protection language, voted.
She was prosecuted for this, however, and ran into an all-male court ruling that
women were not "Persons"; the court leveed a fine but it was never collected.

Political systems within the Second Reich

Following unification of Germany in 1871 the political structure of the Second reich
was roughly as follows:
The Second Reich was made up of 25 German states. Each of these retained its own
Prince, as each had previously been a Princedom. These states were represented on
a National Level by the Reichsrat, the upper house of legislative Parliament.
The Head of State was the Kaiser. This role was an hereditary one based upon the
old Kingdom of Prussia. The Kaiser had the right to summon the Reichstag and
dismiss it as and when he felt appropriate. He also had the power to appoint and
dismiss the Chancellor and all government ministers. It was these Ministers who
would propose legislation to the two houses of Parliament.
The Reichstag was the main legislative body. This institution was democratically
elected every 3 years, with all men over the age of 25 having the vote. This body
debated issues and voted on proposed legislation. The Reichsrat had the power to
veto legislation passed by the Reichstag.
Each State within the Reich had its own local legislative body that dealt with local
issues.
In brief, the legislative bodies worked something like this:
The Kaiser

The Reichstag

The Reichsrat

The chancellor
and
government
ministers

Elected by
Was an assembly of the
Universal Male
representatives of the 26
Appointed
Suffrage every 3 states that made up the
directly by the
years (Voting age Unified Germany. One
Kaiser. They
was 25) The
representative from each
proposed
Kaiser was able to state was a member of the legislation to
summon and/ or Reichsrat. The Reichsrat had be passed by
dismiss the
the right to veto Legislation the reichstag.
Reichstag.
passed by the Reichstag.

Weimar Republic's Constitution

Weimar Republic's new constitution was adopted in August 1919. Many historians
put the blame forWeimar's future political problems on this constitution in that,
ironically, it was too fair as it included everybody regardless of their political beliefs.
However, Friedrich Ebert (Weimar Germany's first president) was committed to
democracy and the new constitution had his full support.

The constitution introduced a bi-cameral assembly: this was a parliament that was
made up of two layers; one represented the whole nation (the Reichstag) and made
whole-nation decisions while the other represented regions (the Reichsrat).
The Reichstag was made up of politicians who were elected through universal
suffrage. All people over 20 years of age could vote. Politicians of the Reichstag sat
for four years and then they had to stand for re-election. The Reichstag used a
system of proportional representation for elections. Issues such as finance, tax,
foreign policy etc. were discussed.
The Reichsrat represented regional governments within Germany such as Prussia,
Bavaria and Saxony. Their task was limited to examining regional
issues.
The president was the head of state. He was elected for a term of seven
years.
The president could appoint his chancellor with the recommendation that the
Chancellor should have the support of a majority in the
Reichstag.
He was also in theory the head of the armed forces.
The president could also dissolve the Reichstag and call a general election
if he felt the political situation warranted it.
He could also veto (refuse to support) Reichstag legislation (laws passed
by the Reichstag). By doing this, the president could kill off any Reichstag
laws he disapproved of.
The president could also declare a state of emergency and rule by
emergency decree.
The constitution was genuinely democratic, after the sham democracy of Kaiser
William II.
Elections were built around universal suffrage and proportional representation.
However, the theoretical strength of the constitution was also its Achilles heel.
Everybody was allowed to vote including extremists from both sides of the political
spectrum - left and right. The system of proportional representation also meant that
if any minor party got the necessary votes, they would have party members in the
Reichstag. The major parties would continue to dominate the Reichstag, but the
minor parties could disrupt proceedings and make the party in power - the Social
Democrats - look incapable of maintaining order in its very seat of power. This is
exactly what the new Nazi Party did in its early years. It got enough votes to get a
few members into the Reichstag (as a result of proportional representation) and
those Nazis elected then did what they could to 'prove' to the German people
that Ebert and the Social Democrats were incompetent in dealing with such basics
as maintaining discipline within the Reichstag.
The constitution was to play a major part in the years 1930 -1933 when the
president, Hindenburg, appointed and sacked chancellors seemingly at will.

Examples of Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism refers to a political system in which all authority is in the hands of
the state. In a totalitarian society, all control of public and private life are
government run.
Hannah Arendt argued that Nazi and State communist regimes were new forms of
government, and not merely updated versions of the old tyrannies. According to
Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes is their ideology, which
provides a comforting, single answer to the mysteries of the past, present, and
future. For Nazism, all history is the history of race struggle; and, for Marxism, all
history is the history of class struggle. Once that premise is accepted, all actions of
the state can be justified by appeal to Nature or the Law of History, justifying their
establishment of authoritarian state apparatus.
totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in support of an official
state ideology, and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the
goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour
unions, churches or political parties.
Totalitarianism as a Method of Government
First conceptually developed in the 1920's by Italian fascists, primarily Giovanni
Amendola, totalitarianism has been present in a variety of movements throughout
history.
Initially, the term was spun to be positive and refer to the positive goals of states
employing totalitarianism. However, Western civilizations most often did not agree
with the concept of totalitarianism and a great deal of discourse regarding the topic
became prevalent from within governments, inside classrooms, and at the dining
room table.
Some governments and movements that Westerners have accused of being
totalitarian in nature include Nazi Germany, Soviets during communism, and the
Stalinist movement in particular.
The difference between totalitarianism and authoritarian regimes is important to
note.

While authoritarian regimes place all of the power into a single dictator or
group, that power is only political.

Within totalitarian regimes, the leadership controls nearly all aspects of the
state from economical to political to social and cultural. Totalitarian regimes
control science, education, art and private lives of residents to the degree of
dictation proper morality. The reach of the government is limitless.

Totalitarian Regimes, Leaders and Countries

Examples of totalitarian leaders/regimes/countries include:

Joseph Stalin In the Soviet Union, after the conclusion of Civil War, Stalin
took over the country and began executing any people who were not in
alignment with the goals of the state.

Benito Mussolini Having seized power in Italy in 1922, Mussolini become the
leader of the nation and immediately began to rule in a totalitarian manner.

Adolf Hitler Notorious for his reign in German, Hitler employed

totalitarianism as a means to attempt to achieve an obedient nation that was
his personal vision for the country.

North Korea North Korea has been ruled by the same family since 1948. The
family has been running the country based on the concept of self-reliance.
However, severe economic declines have contributed to the country's
struggle to maintain totalitarianism.

Mao Zedong From 1949, when he established the People's Republic of

China, until his death in 1976, Chairman Mao lead China in a way in line with
the concepts of totalitarianism.

Nazism refers to the totalitarian Fascist ideology and policies espoused and
practiced by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Worker's Party from
1920-1945. Nazism stressed the superiority of the Aryan, its destiny as the
Master Race to rule the world over other races, and a violent hatred of
Jews, which it blamed for all of the problems of Germany. Nazism also
provided for extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all Germanspeaking peoples into a single empire. The economy envisioned for the state was a
form of corporative state socialism, although members of the party who were
leftists (and would generally support such an economic system over private
enterprise) were purged from the party in 1934.
Paramilitary Organizations
Nazism made use of paramilitary organizations to maintain control within the party,
and to squelch opposition to the party. Violence and terror fostered compliance.
Among these organizations were the:

S.A. known as "brown-shirts" were the Nazi paramilitary arm. It was active in
the battle for the streets against other German political parties.

S.D. - the Security Service.

S.S. - Defense Corps, was an elite guard unit formed out of the S.A.

Gestapo (Geheime Staatpolizeil) - the Secret State Police, which was formed
in 1933.

Nazism also placed an emphasis on sports and paramilitary activities for youth, the
massive use of propaganda (controlled by Joseph Goebbels) to glorify the state, and
the submission of all decisions to the supreme leader (Fuhrer) Adolf Hitler.

Strategies to Implement Totalitarianism

Examples of totalitarian regime strategies to gain control of the nation include:

Having a dictatorship

Employing only one ruling party

Rule through fear

Censorship of media

Propaganda in media, government speeches and through education

Criticism of the state is prohibited

Mandatory military sign up

Secret police forces

Controlling reproduction of the population (either in hopes to increase or to

decrease)

Targeting of specific religious or political populations

Development of a nationalist party

Friedrich and Brzezinski argue that a totalitarian system has the following six,
mutually supportive, defining characteristics:
1. Elaborate guiding ideology.
2. Single mass party, typically led by a dictator.
3. System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret police.
4. Monopoly on weapons.
5. Monopoly on the means of communication.
6. Central direction and control of the economy through state planning.
Totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union had initial origins in the
chaos that followed in the wake of World War I and allowed totalitarian movements
to seize control of the government, while the sophistication of modern weapons and
communications enabled them to effectively establish what Friedrich and Brzezinski
called a totalitarian dictatorship.

Differences between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes[edit]

The term "authoritarian regime" denotes a state in which the single power holder
an individual "dictator", a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of
political elite monopolizes political power. However, a totalitarian regime attempts
to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art,

science, private life and morals of citizens. "The officially

proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and
the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of
its citizens."[9]
Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily
differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not
under governmental control.
Thus, compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a
larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in
social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of
national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits.